Fox News

John Oliver destroys Fox News over staggeringly offensive refugee coverage

John Oliver destroys Fox News over staggeringly offensive refugee coverage

HBO Screenshot


John Oliver took on the heartbreaking stories of the Syrian refugee crisis Sunday night on Last Week Tonight.

Oliver began with an all out assault on Fox News for showing what they said was a new video online that “some” say makes people nervous about taking in refugees. The footage featured a packed public transit train with the crowd chanting “Allahu akbar” or “God is great” in Arabic. The caption reads below the video “Terrorists Inbound? Taking refugees could open door to jihadists.” The Fox News reporter said “those are reportedly Muslim refugees” and then goes on to say “to be clear, we’re not saying any of those people are terrorists or in any way affiliated with a terror group, but it does highlight just how many of these refugees who are fleeing violence in Iraq and Syria are Muslim.”

Oliver lit the Fox News anchor up for claiming she wasn’t calling the people in the video terrorists since the screen actually read “Terrorists Inbound?” below the video. Oliver’s crack research team also uncovered that the video Fox News was showing was uploading in 2010, not, as the reporter claimed recently of “Muslim refugees.” Oliver’s suggestion was to just use the footage from the film True Lies with the Islamic terrorists because it’s only slightly more racist and is at least of actual terrorists albeit fictional ones.

One of the heartbreaking stories Oliver highlighted was the story of teenager Nageen Mustafa who has been wheelchair bound for most of her life and managed to make the difficult journey from Syria to Europe fleeing violence. The girl was all smiles in the video saying the terrifying journey was “funny,” because it was “the first time I see the sea.” BBC reporter Fergal Keane asked her what she wanted to be when she grew up and she said an astronaut because she wanted to see an alien. She also wants to meet Queen Elizabeth.

Because of her disability she was shunned and prevented from going to school. Her English is exceptional so reporters have asked her how she learned, she said she spent two years watching the soap opera Days of Our Lives.

“Unfortunately for Nageen and so many like her,” Oliver said, “Europe has yet to create an effective system to process this influx of people. Every country has a different application process and some are totally overwhelmed and underfunded.”

He then showed examples of the forms that many of the refugees are being handed with appointment dates to discuss their status in anywhere from three months to five years from now. Oliver reminded the audience that between now and then they cannot legally work in the country to which they are fleeing without proper status and immigration paperwork.

Unless of course, they go to Germany. Oliver showed footage of the thousands of people streaming into German airports where Germans are applauding and welcoming them as they arrive. “That’s right, amazingly, one of the warmest welcomes offered to immigrants comes from Germany. A country whose idea of a bedtime story is two children being left to die in the forest before being nearly being cooked and eaten and murdering an old woman,” Oliver said of the tale Hansel and Gretel. ” Sleep well!”

Oliver then decimates the heartless camera woman who was caught tripping refugees as they were trying to escape boarder guards. “Oh! She lost her job!” Oliver said. “I’m sorry, I’m sure she can find a new one on”

“The maddening thing here is Europe doesn’t even have to do this for good reasons. It can do it for selfish ones, because it is in dire need of new citizens,” Oliver said before rolling footage of a report talking about the extremely low birth rate in Europe.

In the end Oliver’s gift to the refugees is a special video for young Nageen who was so disappointed her favorite character on Days of Our Lives was killed off. You’ll want to watch in the video below – it’s everything:

Trump to O’Reilly: 14th Amendment is unconstitutional

NEW YORK - MAY 15: Donald Trump watches from the stands along with news commentator Bill O'Reilly during the game between the New York Yankees and Minnesota Twins at Yankee Stadium on May 15, 2009 in the Bronx borough of New York City. The Yankees defeated the Twins 5-4. (Photo by Joe Robbins/Getty Images)

(Photo by Joe Robbins/Getty Images)


Donald Trump clashed with Bill O’Reilly on Tuesday night over the part of his immigration plan that would take away citizenship from the children who were born in the United States but whose parents came to the country illegally.

Under the 14th Amendment, O’Reilly told Trump on “The O’Reilly Factor,” mass deportations of so-called birthright citizens cannot happen.

Trump disagreed, and said that “many lawyers are saying that’s not the way it is in terms of this.”

“What happens is, they’re in Mexico, they’re going to have a baby, they move over here for a couple of days, they have the baby,” Trump said, telling O’Reilly that the lawyers said, “It’s not going to hold up in court, it’s going to have to be tested.

“Regardless, when people are illegally in the country, they have to go. Now, the good ones — there are plenty of good ones — will work, so it’s expedited, we can expedite it where they come back in, but they come back legally,” Trump clarified.

O’Reilly then asked Trump if he envisions “federal police kicking in the doors in barrios around the country dragging families out and putting them on a bus” as a means to deport everyone he intends to deport.

“I don’t think they have American citizenship, and if you speak to some very, very good lawyers — some would disagree. But many of them agree with me — you’re going to find they do not have American citizenship. We have to start a process where we take back our country. Our country is going to hell. We have to start a process, Bill, where we take back our country,” Trump said.

There is a way to do it, O’Reilly said, in amending the Constitution.

Trump also said that he would not pursue an amendment to the Constitution to remedy the situation.

“It’s a long process, and I think it would take too long. I’d much rather find out whether or not anchor babies are citizens because a lot of people don’t think they are,” he said. “We’re going to test it out. That’s going to happen, Bill.”

Fox News’ Jesse Watters proposes sending undocumented immigrants on “a Trail of Tears” to build Trump’s Mexican border wall

Fox News' Jesse Watters proposes sending undocumented immigrants on "a Trail of Tears" to build Trump's Mexican border wall

Fox News screenshot

In 1838 and 1839, as part of Andrew Jackson's Indian removal policy, the Cherokee nation was forced to give up its lands east of the Mississippi River and to migrate to an area in present-day Oklahoma. The Cherokee people called this journey the "Trail of Tears," because of its devastating effects. -  PBS


“If these illegals came to the US and had babies who grew up Republican, Democrats would build a bigger wall”

On “The Five” Monday, Fox News’ court jester Jesse Watters inflicted his brand of humor on the immigration debate, claiming that he supports Trump’s draconian immigration policy even though it would require “a Trail of Tears” to work.

The segment began with a clip of Trump telling NBC’s Chuck Todd on Sunday that his immigration plan wouldn’t entail breaking up families, because he wouldn’t just be deporting illegal parents, he would be deporting their children too “in order to keep the families together.”

“This is a massively inhumane proposal,” Geraldo Rivera said. “Do you remember the picture of Elian Gonzalez, the Cuban child being forcibly deported with that immigration officer holding that gun while he was hiding in the closet? Multiply that by two million.”

“I love how Chuck Todd’s whining about ‘Where are these poor illegal aliens going to go,’” Watters replied. “Hey, Chuck! Put ’em up at your place, I’m sure you’ve got plenty of room. He’s a compassionate guy, and I bet he has a mansion.”

Over the exasperated cries of his co-hosts, Watters continued, saying “I think the plan is simple. Maybe here’s what we do to them — we send them to the Mexican border, and maybe the illegal alien families build the wall. Then when the wall’s finished, they get amnesty.”

“That’s just as unrealistic as Trump’s plan,” former George W. Bush press secretary Dana Perino said.

“Do you ever listen to yourself?” Geraldo asked.

“Listen, I know it’s going to be a Trail of Tears, but it’s a simple plan: protect the border, protect families, protect jobs,” Watters said. “I don’t buy these crocodile tears from liberals, ‘What’s going to happen?’ Because we know what they think is going to happen, because we saw what Kelly Osbourne said, ‘You can’t deport the illegals, who’s going to clean the toilets?’ They think of these people as servants.”

“Look,” he continued, “if these people were illegally coming to this country to have babies who grew up Republican, Democrats would be building a bigger wall.”

“And you would have a different opinion,” Rivera said.

“You think so?” Watters asked. “You’re calling me a hypocrite, Geraldo?”

“You’re just a partisan politician,” Rivera replied.

Watch the entire segment via Fox News.

H/t: DB

Megyn Kelly abruptly announces unplanned two-week vacation, effective immediately

Megyn Kelly abruptly announces unplanned two-week vacation, effective immediately

Fox News screen-grab


Not that compassionate people should begrudge her more time to recuperate, but the timing is curious

The week following her aggressive questioning last Thursday of Republican front-runner Donald Trump has not been an easy one for Fox News’ Megyn Kelly.

From being called a “bimbo” to death threats to never being able to unthink this grotesquerie, there’s no debating that Kelly could use a more substantial vacation that than the three-day trip to the beach she earlier claimed to have embarked upon after the debate.

And why shouldn’t she take a longer break? Two more weeks devoted to recuperating from the Donald’s relentless Trumping isn’t something compassionate people should be beyond begrudging.

However, the timing of her unplanned absence is a touch curious, coming mere days after Roger Ailes had to personally step to ratchet down hostilities between the battling parties — especially given the rumors that he told Trump that not accepting the detente would mean “go[ing] to war” with the network.

For Kelly to abandon her show so soon after scoring what was, by most accounts, a decisive victory against the real estate magnate is a curious decision on the host’s part — if, indeed, it is her decision, as it was also revealed earlier in the week that Ailes offered Trump time on “The Kelly File,” even though Kelly was adamant that shewould not be apologizing for what she considered to be “good journalism.”

Watch the entire video via Fox News

Scott Eric Kaufman

Megyn Kelly Responds To Donald Trump: “I Certainly Will Not Apologize For Doing Good Journalism”


Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly said Monday she will not respond to personal attacks by Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump, who sharply criticized her after last week’s debate.

During Thursday’s Republican presidential debate, Kelly had asked Trump to address his negative comments toward women, calling some “fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals.” In response, Trump responded jokingly, “only Rosie O’Donnell.”

“For the record, it was well beyond Rosie O’Donnell,” Kelly said during Monday’s broadcast of The Kelly File as she pressed for an answer to the question.

“I felt he was asked a tough but fair question,” Kelly said. “We agree to disagree.”

Andrew Harnik / AP

Following the debate, Trump said he felt the moderators’ questions were “not nice,” and that Kelly in particular treated him poorly. He went on to tweet and retweet rants about Kelly that called her a “bimbo,” overrated, and angry.

His criticism reached a fever pitch Friday in an interview with CNN’s Don Lemon, in which he said Kelly had “blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.”

The candidate on Saturday tweeted he meant to say she had blood coming out of her nose, though the remark was taken by many to be a reference to menstruation. In response, Trump’s top adviser parted ways with the businessman, and Trump was also disinvited from the conservative RedState gathering in Atlanta.

Kelly said Monday she had decided not to respond to the personal attacks.

“I certainly will not apologize for doing good journalism,” she continued. “So I’ll continue doing my job without fear or favor. And Mr. Trump, I expect, will continue with what has been a successful campaign so far.”

Jon Stewart’s real threat to Fox News: You don’t get to define patriotism!

Jon Stewart's real threat to Fox News: You don't get to define patriotism!

Jon Stewart surrounded by, clockwise from top left: Donald Trump, Megyn Kelly, Bill O’Reilly, Tucker Carlson (Credit: Comedy Central/Fox News/Reuters/Brendan McDermid/AP/Mark J. Terrill/Salon)


Post-9/11, critiquing the right meant you hated the country. Stewart was the perfect foil for that false patriotism

As we enter the final days of Jon Stewart’s tenure as host of “The Daily Show” there has been a flurry of information about Stewart’s impact. Beyond top 10 lists, we have also learned that Stewart had two meetings with President Obama, suggesting, to some, that he had enormous influence over the White House. The unreported meetings were covered by Fox News as though they were proof of some sort of scandalous collusion. Stewart, of course, mocked the Fox News hyperbole by saying, “It was a roundtable meeting with the President, Elvis, still alive, Minister Farrakhan, and the Area 51 alien. We opened with the traditional Saul Alinsky prayer, sucked on the blood of the righteous, and took turns f*cking a replica of the Reagan eye socket. The real Reagan eye socket is kept in the Smithsonian and is only f*cked on Christmas.”

While Stewart schooled Fox News, yet again, we were reminded of why Stewart really posed a threat to Fox News and its viewers: He refused to let them define patriotism. As the joke above proves, Stewart repeatedly went after the overblown, hysterical ways in which the extreme right wing characterizes progressives as “moonbats” who hate their country. Not only did he remind his audience again and again of the ways that the right misrepresents the politics of the left, he, along with Stephen Colbert, offered viewers a chance to support their country on their own terms. And that may well be one of the most important legacies of Stewart’s “Daily Show” career.

Think about it. When was the last time anyone associated with left-leaning politics was heralded as a national hero? Even Obama’s message of “hope” was mocked by Sarah Palin when she famously quipped: “How’s that hopey-changey stuff working out?” Imagine a Democrat doing the same thing to a Republican candidate. Now imagine what Fox News and its army of trolls would do to them.

As Geoffrey Nunberg proves, beginning around the Vietnam War, the country became divided over what it means to support our nation. As those on the left protested the ill-conceived war, they were branded as unpatriotic, as hating the troops, and as the source of the decline of all “traditional” American values. From there it just got worse.

In the post 9/11 era, those on the right effectively monopolized the definition of U.S. patriotism. George W. Bush immediately imposed an “us versus them” rhetoric that made it impossible to question his administration and not be accused of treason. Consequently, the GOP took its ownership of patriotism to a whole new level. Remember when John Kerry “reported for duty” at the 2004 Democratic National Convention? Remember how dumb that sounded?  Even a decorated vet could have his patriotism seem almost comical.

Thus patriotism and right-wing values became merged as one and the same thing.  If you critiqued the right, you hated the country.  This rhetoric was spun up into full-blown hysteria on Fox News and via the ongoing din of conservative pundits who all claim that they know the secret to saving our nation from oblivion. We have pundit after pundit on the right authoring books that suggest that they and they alone know what it means to support the country. From Ann Coulter to Glenn Beck to Bill O’Reilly each pundit tells us the nation is falling apart, its values are being forgotten, and they have the solution to fix it.

That’s where the satirists come in. Stewart and Colbert worked together to create one of the most powerful attacks on GOP patriotism we have seen in decades. They reminded their audiences that it was not just reasonable, but, in fact, patriotic to question our role in an unjust war. They showed us that the best way to support our troops was to have them avoid unnecessary wars and to make sure that they were well taken care of upon their return. While Fox News covered such pressing stories as a “ground zero mosque,” Stewart advocated for a First Responders Bill and fought for better healthcare for veterans — stories that were noticeably underplayed in Fox News coverage. Even more important, Stewart didn’t just cover the stories; he is credited with playing a major role in helping effect policy.

Colbert and Stewart worked together to educate citizens on campaign finance when they created their own super PAC—a move that helped the average citizen understand the consequences of Citizens United, which allows the wealthy to have undue influence on campaign contributions.  Certainly it would seem that defending the rights of voters is a pretty patriotic act. More important, it is one we rarely see taken up on the right.  Instead we learn of redistricting and voter ID laws, both of which work to disenfranchise voters rather than defend them.

But Stewart and Colbert did much more than fight for policy change and educate citizens; they showed us that it was time to reclaim the meaning of our national identity from the GOP. They used satire to explain that we had lost our language of national values. Mocking the “wishy-washy” way that progressives can favor tolerance over the aggressive imposition of their ideas, they reminded us that being tolerant was, indeed, a founding American value—and it was one we needed to fight for. That was exactly what they did at their 2010 “Rally to Restore Sanity” on the National Mall. There they advocated for a return to core American values like reason, tolerance, civil rights and democracy.

Of course that is not the version of patriotism on offer by Fox News.  In the Fox News world, patriotism often overlaps with conservative Christian values and includes a lot more fear, intolerance and outright hatred than was ever any part of the mind-set of our nation’s founders, regardless of how hypocritical they may have been.  In an era when flying the Confederate flag can be taken as a sign of patriotism and when defending the right to own a gun is considered more patriotic than defending the life of a fellow citizen, it becomes clear that the GOP definition of patriotism has little to do with democracy or basic rights.

But perhaps the real way that Stewart and Colbert worked to challenge the Fox News effect on patriotism was to remind fans that being critical can and should be a central feature of active citizenship.  Patriotism in a democracy never should be blind faith. And yet blind faith is a key component of the right-wing brain. As Stewart demonstrated on his interview segment, active questioning is the stuff of a strong democracy and it is a key feature of progressive politics, meaning that progressives are arguably far more committed to democracy than any conservative ever could be.

In contrast to the negative critique and baseline grouchiness that can characterize much left discourse, Stewart and Colbert offered a positive spirit, what Henry Giroux calls “educated hope.” For the first time in decades, progressives were able to fightfor something rather than against the status quo. U.S. citizens could question the hubris behind American exceptionalism, they could challenge the hypocrisies that have always been a part of our national history, and they could work toward making the nation better, not giving up on it.  Most important, they could recognize that allowing the GOP to corner the market on patriotism may be the most unpatriotic act ever.

This was the real art of Stewart’s satire—a comedic mode that can often seem like nothing more than negative mockery. Stewart showed us that the real mockery of our nation’s values comes from Fox News and the politicians it serves. He urged citizens to fight the anger and fear that dominates much GOP rhetoric. This is why his heartfelt monologues after 9/11 and after the Charleston church murders were so moving and so significant.

We recently learned that Stewart’s successor, Trevor Noah, doesn’t plan to keep Fox News idiocy as a central motif to his satirea move to be expected given the differences between his comedy base and Stewart’s.  And we can also expect that South African-born Noah won’t be much help when it comes to offering us a foil for GOP patriotism either. If there is one question we need to ask as Stewart leaves his post, it is, who will carry the flag once he’s gone.

Sophia A. McClennen 

Vox Sentences: Your viewing guide to Thursday’s Republican (and Canadian) debates

The 10 GOP qualifiers for Thursday's presidential debate.

Vox / Javier Zarracina


Obama Strongly Urges Democrats To Watch GOP Debates, And Why You Should



President Obama is taking his first campaigning steps for fellow Democrats hot on the 2016 presidential trail. He’s sent out an email encouraging Dems to put aside their scorn for each and every one of the conservative hopefuls and to listen to the debates Thursday night, closely.

Obama wrote in his email, distributed by the Democratic National Committee:

“Tune in, listen carefully to what the Republican candidates for president say, and then hold them accountable for trying to undo all of the hard work we’ve done to move this country forward.”

But the email’s only purpose is not just to encourage Democrats to hold their noses and watch the Republican debates, which will take place in Cleveland, Ohio. It is also to collect vital voter data, as well as growing the list of potential supporters for when the election really gets into the nitty-gritty of the campaign season.

Obama wants Democrats to watch the GOP debate and take notes to hold them accountable so badly that he’s also included a means for citizens to actually pledge that they will watch the debate.

Great move, Obama! After all, how can Democrats effectively counter Republican garbage if they don’t even know what it is beyond a sound bite?

The president’s letter also throws a few small jabs at conservatives for trying to undermine the Affordable Care Act, dire climate change realities, same-sex marriage and immigration reform, among other subjects. But again, the president doesn’t do so just out of ego to slap Republicans around a little. He does it because he needs to remind Democrats that they cannot sit back on their laurels and assume conservatives’ own ridiculousness will result in them shooting themselves in the political foot so badly and frequently that they lose the election for themselves. Instead, Obama wants Democrats to be armed with the knowledge of who the Republican candidates are and what they stand for because he knows if liberals do know that information they can’t help but stay motivated to vote, because there is just no chance in hell any of them will want a single one of those conservative candidates to hold the Oval Office. If it was about ego and being nasty alone, Obama would name names when he talks about conservatives trying to undermine his work over the last eight years.

Obama stated:

“While these Republicans may have bad ideas, they’re still smart politicians. They know how to make policies that will take us in the wrong direction sound like they might actually be pretty good ideas.”

That’s called double-speak, and Americans should be so well-versed in that now that they recognize it like a long-lost sibling. But, many still, shockingly, do not – hence Obama’s email.

So watch the debates with a pen in hand, a laptop nearby and TiVo recording it all for you to go back over again and again whenever necessary so you are ready and knowledgeable not only to debate, yourself, with your own family members over those final barbecues of summer, but for the primaries and ultimately the presidential election, too.

The race is on! Let it begin…

Veteran Campaign Reporters Criticize Fox News’ Control Over Republican Debate: “This Whole Thing Is A Sham”

Fox News’ Roger Ailes also GOP Presidential Candidates for 2016


Veteran presidential campaign correspondents and media experts are criticizing Fox News’ unprecedented role as a gatekeeper in the Republican primary.

This week, Fox News will host the first primary debate of the cycle. The event is something of a coup for the network, which has been exerting increasing control over the Republican electoral process over the past decade. The debate will be limited to 10 candidates, based on their standing in a series of national polls that Fox itself is selecting. Fox News’ debate rules have been criticized by several candidates and Republican activists for a variety of reasons, including that the network is overriding the importance of early voting primary states by essentially narrowing the field several months early.

People inside the network have also expressed frustration with the debate process with an anonymous Fox personality reportedly telling New York magazine that it’s “crazy stuff” to have Fox News head Roger Ailes essentially “deciding who is in – and out – of a debate.”

In comments to Media Matters, veteran campaign reporters, media reporters, and ethicists criticized Fox’s influence.

“Should Fox be playing this role?” asked Eric Engberg, a former CBS News correspondent who covered presidential campaigns from 1976 to 2000. “I think given Fox’s ideological bent and that Roger Ailes has spent most of his career working on political campaigns, this whole thing is a sham.”

As Media Matters has documented, candidates have been flocking to the network to get face time with its influential hosts and reach its conservative audience, which in turn boosts interest in Fox. In some cases, candidates and groups supporting them have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Fox ads to help bolster their image and hopefully increase their national polling ahead of the debate.

In a segment laying out how super PACs supporting former Texas Gov. Rick Perry had made a large ad buy on Fox News and other cable networks ahead of the debate, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow explained, “So, Fox News set that rule for the Republican Party, and now, Fox News gets to cash in on that rule by getting all of the Rick Perry super PAC money in the form of his national ads. It’s a nice racket, right?

“That sounds to me like either extortion or bribery, I don’t know which,” Engberg said. “You don’t know whether Fox has indicated to these people that they would be wise to buy more advertising. It has a smell of corruption about it because it mixes money with open political campaigning.”

The New York Times reported on June 4 that Republicans in Iowa and New Hampshire “fear candidates are too focused on getting on television to enhance their poll standing, when they should be out meeting voters in town halls and greasy spoons.” Former chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa Matt Strawn lamented that “now we have put network executives, quite frankly, in charge of winnowing the field instead of actual voters.” Newspapers in early primary states have also “mounted an insurrection against Fox News” by co-sponsoring a candidate forum before the Fox debate.

“It’s obvious that the early primary states and the Iowa caucuses have suffered a blow from the way Fox is managing things,” Engberg added. “There is less focus on Iowa and New Hampshire because all of the candidates’ staffs felt the most important thing is going to be this televised debate on Fox, especially if it is going to be the first … We can call it the Roger Ailes primary. One television executive has taken control of the process of deciding. It has a smell of one-man rule about it.”

David Zurawik, Baltimore Sun TV critic, called the Fox control of the debate “a game changer.”

“Instead of going to the states where the primaries and caucuses are held, they are spending money on TV to reach a mass audience,” he said. “Worse, and this is the part that’s really kind of mind-boggling, is that Fox is going to pick the 10 people based on the polls and there’s a line in there that says they judge the polls and they’re picking them. And now you have people like Rick Perry and [Marco] Rubio saying that the way to reach the line it takes to be picked by Fox is spend millions of dollars to advertise on Fox … This is not an appearance of conflict it is a straight conflict.”

Adam Clymer, a former New York Times political correspondent between 1972 and 2000, called the approach “inevitably messy,” later stating, “Fox is both an advertising and news media for them, with the fact that some of them have been paid commentators before. In theory you would like to have somebody making the decision about who participates who is not involved in covering the news.”

Walter Mears, a Pulitzer Prize-winning former Associated Press campaign reporter who covered every general election presidential debate from 1976 to 2000, was also a panelist for the 1976 vice presidential debate. He urged an “impartial organization” running the debate.

“Some of them have been Fox commentators, and now they’re players,” he said of the candidates. “In the worst case you would have conservative sweetheart questions directed to these guys. I would suspect that they will go to some lengths to try to appear impartial and appear even-handed so that it won’t look to be contrived and controlled. The shift to the right compelled by Fox News has changed the definition of what’s an impartial producer for a debate.”

Marvin Kalb, former host of Meet the Press, said Republican candidates have drifted ideologically to Fox, and Fox to them: “Buying time to win acceptance to a debate is only the latest twist in a long-standing drama. Up until now, buying time provided face time; now, in addition, it may win a place in a debate whose ground rules the network sets.”

For Walter Shapiro, who covered nine presidential campaigns dating back to 1980 for The Washington Post, Newsweek, Salon and others, the Republican Party is also to blame for “the total abject surrender to the TV networks.”

“By going first, Fox has made a mockery of the debates and it is because [Republican National Committee Chair] Reince Priebus punted and the RNC punted and said to Fox, ‘you figure it out,’ that much is clear,” Shapiro said. “This is a Republican forum.”

He later added, “Fox played a major role in making Donald Trump the central story on the Republican side. This is the moment where Republicans should begin to realize that Fox is a business entity concerned with ratings, with the elevation of Trump to the detriment of the rest of the Republican party.”